 So I am presenting on social ecological systems health in trans-Francian conservation areas using the Prusuli project case. My name is Priskam Gaby from the University of Zimbabwe and I really want to thank Jack for adequately introducing me because I am, my last certificate that I got from school said I'm a Rangeland Ecology and Management person. So thank you very much for that great introduction of me. So this presentation is about looking at social ecological systems health domain of one health, looking at why the social ecological systems health approach, how trans-Francian conservation areas are illustrative of these social ecological systems and how the Prusuli project addressed social ecological systems health within trans-Francian conservation areas. And we are using partly the guiding principles of the social ecological systems which are linked systems of people and nature wherein humans are not seen apart from nature but as part of nature with many interconnected relationships. And also we look at the social ecological system health which is a framework of health in social ecological systems and the links of functionality and sustainability or resilience of the social ecological systems so that one cannot promote the health of humans or domestic animals at the expense of the social ecological systems health as feedback loops will ultimately impact negatively on the health of both. We just gave here an examples of the many offerings of presenting social ecological systems one that we use in our platform looking at the relationships between the ecological systems the social ecosystems, the interconnected interactions and also even the external drivers. So when we look at the Southern Africa trans-Francian conservation areas in terms of landscape scale these are large scale biodiversity systems straddling at least two countries with one or more protected areas within the TFCA and multiple natural and cultural resources. And if we look at the Southern Africa Development community area we have 18 TFCA's in various stages of formation which are accounting for perhaps more than 10 million square kilometers of land area and also more than perhaps more than 12 million people. So these are not at all insignificant. And so the philosophy of the TFCA's is that philosophy and maybe the purpose is to conserve biodiversity, to reconnect ecological systems and also to promote and facilitate natural wildlife migrations across these various countries. And economically they are meant to for tourism development, poverty reduction, regional socioeconomic integration and they are governed firstly by bi or multilateral agreements. So in terms of scale they are formed and defined at that scale. So 20 years or more since the formation of this idea of TFCA's in Southern Africa we still witness relative imbalances, imbalance between local development and conservation where in the poverty, food security and livelihoods of the people in those they receive imbalanced attention and resources as compared to conservation which in this case is normally looked at in terms of wildlife populations, ecosystem functioning and so on at that level. And so again we see yet another wicked problem of whether we are looking at conservation and or socioeconomic development. So the promoting sustainable livelihoods in trans France conservation areas or the prosouli project was implemented in 2018 to 2022 to address the mismatch between biodiversity conservation, local livelihoods and well-being of people in the TFCA's. And this was in four community in two FCA's in Botswana, Mozambique and Zimbabwe with the hypothesis that collective action supported by targeted capacity building and co-designed governance systems could result in better appropriation of livelihoods and more sustainable use of natural resources for the benefits of the whole socio-ecological system. And we saw this in the previous presentation. This is just an artist's perception of the interactions and the connectivities and the components that we have in these TFCA's. So in terms of the actual locations of implementation of prosouli, it was in two TFCA's at the top there. Unfortunately I don't have a pointer. At the top there, the big green area is bounded by the brown boundary is the Kavango, Zambese, trans-frontier conservation area straddling five countries. And the other one was implemented in the Great Limpopo trans-frontier conservation area more to the south there, straddling three countries. And in the Caza TFCA, we had two sites. One in the Seronga area of Botswana where we had agro-pastoralists and wildlife private sector coexistence issues. And so prosouli came in with some facilitation to make that coexistence better. And in Wange, in this neighborhood, we had prosouli facilitating the foundation for a community landscape regeneration. In Senwe, in southeastern Zimbabwe, we had prosouli promoting or facilitating, rather, solar-powered water-pumping boreholes and which are coupled with irrigation systems and deep tanks for the control of animal diseases and also, I can read the other stuff there. And then in the site in Mozambique, we had also water system facilitation and also tick-borne diseases management. But the issue of boreholes and water-pumping was quite common across the generality of those sites. So the prosouli project used an SES or social ecological system or landscape-oriented approach in developing capabilities, facilitating agency, and improving livelihoods for the well-being based on sound management of natural and social assets. Using also co-elaborative, participative co-elaborative scenario building where we facilitated for the communities to envision plausible future scenarios for local livelihoods. And after that, coming up with actions to promote the desired futures. In Zimbabwe, we also collaborated with the Kama Africa Initiative for a participatory community-based socioeconomic livelihood toolkit to monitor the state and healthiness of the SES. So in terms of photographic representation, when we look at what we were doing in terms of co-design and co-monitoring of selected natural resources management options, we started with the co-design process with the communities. And I would like to say, out of the four years of the project, this co-design took us one year and more. That's how important it was. And also participation in coming up with actions and then empowerment. Here I give the example of empowering through the provision of water, which was then used to supply water to the deep tanks, which are used to control ticks, which cause diseases in cattle and other animals. And also the same water was used to supply water for schoolchildren and also the irrigated gardens and also the clinic. Clinic here, may I just quickly mention that it was about pregnant mothers in waiting who were at this clinic, who were supplied with this. And so we had also co-monitoring and sustainability. So just to look at some of the outputs of this, we had here, we are representing the social ecological system health in terms of the animal health management through the deep tank and also even provision of water in clean watering systems, because without that, those animals would have been going to a river infested with crocodiles to drink water. And a lot of losses would okay. Another social ecological systems health factor was the promotion and facilitation of these nutrition gardens, provision of space, solar powered water systems and storage, the fencing to manage human wildlife conflicts, provision of nutritive vegetables, even outside the rainfall season, and also an opportunity for income generation. Another facilitation here in terms of the health was this activity which was run by a master's students facilitating the learning for those communities in terms of producing healthy sweet potato vines which they had opted for and which actually are a way of managing human wildlife conflict because if the bulb is below ground, perhaps the monkey's not going to go for it. Another empowerment in terms of the social ecological system was that two of the communities or more I would have to confirm with our colleagues actually managed through facilitation and capacity development and empowerment to manage themselves through an act of polyamint to be an agricultural cooperative society. This bringing for them many benefits, many bargaining capabilities and spaces in terms of future engagement in terms of their development. So in conclusion, we are saying prosely project advance the social ecological systems health framework in the context of TFCA's. A disclaimer, we could not have addressed all the complex issues of social ecological systems but I think we made a beginning. Through human and animal health as pillars of social ecological system through the production of healthy food for healthy people and how the health of the social ecological system can be operationalized to navigate the wicked problem at the interface between biodiversity conservation and local development. I thank you.